14 Apr '13Future commenters: if you disagree with the review, that is perfectly fine and normal. If you wish to add your own thoughts of the book, that's also perfectly fine. But please keep the ad hominems and accusations (and not just directed at me, but also other commenters) at home.

Everyone's free to say what they wish on a public forum. But I am also free to moderate what goes on in my space. I've never deleted/moderated comments before, as that goes against my beliefs on free and public discourse, but any future offensive or judgemental/critical-of-people-instead-of-the-book comments will be ignored and deleted.

This is a review of a book, not a fact sheet. Just because I think this book is stupid, does not mean I think people who enjoy it are stupid. No need to be defensive/insulted over it.

11 Dec '12Edit, because I am fucking sick of people coming up to the comments section, especially without reading through the previous pages of comments, and stomp in, guns blazing with accusations of racism and slutshaming.

2) Slutshaming / How dare you call her the S word! / Girls like you are setting back feminism by a few decades! / Other holier-than-thou comments

First of all -- if you're going to start accusing me of slut-shaming simply because of my use of the word "slut", GTFO. I'm going to steal a commenter's words here: slut-shaming is not about the word, it's about a mind set.(view spoiler)[Thanks, Red. Please don't sue me for plagiarism. (hide spoiler)]

But just to make it extra crispy clear: it isn't Rose's sluttiness that pisses me off and makes me loathe her, it's her hypocrisy and objectifying of human beings. Had she been a male character I would have called him an ass/jerk/manwhore. How many people would object to that?!

17 Apr '12Where I come from, there are these type of girls who would literally throw themselves out at any white boy. I'm not sure why, but it seems that they have this idea that Caucasian = hotness. Boys, being boys, well ... they snatch up every opportunity. What really bugs me though, is not only the immense cheapness of these girls, but the extent to which they will go out there and hunt these western boys. Don't get too eager and start asking me where this paradise of easy sex is, though. They're not the exotic Lucy Liu goddesses; most of them are just plain... fugly.

The heroine of this book reminds me a lot of those girls. Well, except she's not one of the fugly ones.This one sentence wraps it up for me:

"I was a pretty dhampir, one who didn't mind getting into trouble and pulling crazy stunts. I became a novelty; they liked having me around for the fun of it."

Just like those girls know these foreigners only keep them around for the "fun" of it, and would just as easily toss them aside like a used condom.Rose Hathaway is the kind of girl who'd hook up with a guy just because he's hot. She'll be with one guy, but thinking about another. She is constantly thinking about getting with guys:

"You flirted with the other guys simply for the sake of flirting. You flirted with Jesse in the hopes of getting semi-naked with him. He was a royal Moroi, and he was so hot, he should have worn awarning: flammable sign."

and yet when someone accuses her of being a slut, she's all indignant. What, if you don't go as far as sex, then it annuls any tendencies of sluttiness? Please. I have a lot of promiscuous friends - I'm not exactly wearing a promise ring myself - but at least have the decency to embrace your inner slut.What irritates me even more with this character is how she would then go about referring to other dhampirs who offer "services" to morois as "bloodwhores". Bitch, please - you're not so far off yourself. Hypocritical characters are just not my thing. ESPECIALLY when they don't realize they're being hypocritical, or when the author doesn't realize s/he's writing a hypocritical character.

Now, there is a difference between confidence and arrogance; both I find charming in their own ways. But Rose Hathaway is neither. She is downright up herself, which is not a trait that I find endearing. I had to roll my eyes every time she described her sexiness...

"I knew I was pretty, but to Moroi boys, my body was more than just pretty: it was sexy in a risqué way."

"I knew perfectly well that there weren't a lot of girls at this school who looked as good in a bra as I did."

The first one or two times were perhaps forgivable. But the third time around, I really couldn't help but groan. But in fact, Rose seems to be only obsessed with looks (which is odd, considering her "occupation" as a guardian); you'd think considering what she's been through, she'd be a little less shallow than that.

"Me. Turning into Alberta. Her...and all the other female guardians. They're all leathery and stuff. Fighting and training and always being outdoors - they aren't pretty anymore." I paused."This...this life. It destroys them. Their looks, I mean."

But forget her vanity for a second. Let's take a look at her apparently "redeeming" characteristic; her loyalty to her best friend, Lissa. You know, the one whose relationship she sabotaged?

"Why don't you just leave her alone? Are you so messed up and desperate for attention that you can't tell when someone doesn't like you?" He scowled. "You're some crazy stalker, and she knows it. She's told me all about your weird obsession-how you're always hanging out in the attic together, how you set Ralf on fire to impress her. She thinks you're a freak, but she's too nice to say anything."

...and for no other reason than jealousy. Oh, and because this dude comes from a shamed family. Never mind how much her best friend obviously adores him. Never mind how much he obviously cares about her in return.All in all, I just couldn't sympathize for Rose. She was an attempt of a kick-ass, independent, empowered young girl - but she came across as conceited, hypocritical, and shallow.

Then the princess girl? Lissa? I don't know ... she was just bland. None of the characters in the book stood out for me. Even the romance seemed kind of forced (not to mention predictable - but aren't they all?!). It seemed the only reason Dimitri and Rose had this vibe going on was because of their mutual hotness (a word frequently thrown out there in the book). There was this brief explanation of how it was also because of their shared extreme dedication in being guardians - which I didn't buy. I have an extreme dedication in journalism, but I don't fall in love with every dedicated journalists out there.

Plot-wise... meh. Nothing special. The story was about a vampire and her half-human, half-vampire guardian, who had run away from a "vampire academy" and at the beginning of the book were captured and returned. The secret behind their escape was obviously a device to keep us hooked, but when it was finally revealed, it didn't seem too "wow, omigod" for me.The Vampires in this story didn't even seem like your traditional vampires, other than their weakness when exposed to direct sunlight, and their occasional "feeding". There was apparently another type of Vampire, which were called the "strigoi", which we didn't see much of; and even when we did, it wasn't even that exciting.

Editing-wise... could be better. "describrd" on page 142 is one of the errors that I remembered. There were more, but I can't be bothered flipping through the pages to find them.

In conclusion. Maybe I would've liked this better if I were... 15? 16? But then again, maybe not.

Sorry, but I'm not a believer of not using certain words for the sake of women's empowerment (I'm NOT saying I don't support women's empowerment, of course). Neither am I attaching negative/positive values towards being a slut. It's just a simple word that describes a person. Like saying someone's bossy.

Haha same here, I kept cringing on how HOT she kept saying she was. While Bella in Twilight kept asking why Edward would EVER be with her plain-self (also damn repetitive), Rosa was the total opposite. I like Lissa though, her character gets more interesting as the book progress. And ugh... best friends that spied on one another? Vampires more worried about reputation and cliques in school???

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Let me rephrase that, there's nothing wrong with being a "slut" --it's just not for me. What irked me about Rose was that she was one of those "promiscuous girls" and yet she (1) Hated to be called out on it, and (2) Talked down the "blood-whores" like she was any better than them.

I say, if you're a slut, you're a slut. Love it or leave it, hun. Kinda like being a bitch. Either fess up or stop acting like one.

*sigh* Well this is a bit out of context from the review but if you insist...

This is why you should never butt in to something unless you're aware of the social context.

Yes, those girls are sluts. You want to tell me they're not? What else do you call that sort of behaviour? It's a word, and it means something, so I use it to describe people.Are you troubled by my use of the word "slut", or are you troubled by me calling people out on it?

BUT!!! it's not their sluttiness that makes me give them zero respect. As I ALSO said in my review, I have a lot of slutty friends and I love them. They're amazing people. I'm pro pre-marital sex myself, whatever.

It's also not even their apparent choice in sexing white men and white men only that grates on my nerves.

Really, it's why they do it. Foreigners - specifically caucasians - are like a novelty to them. They're like a trophy. It's like, omigosh I sexed a white guy. I'm sooooo cool. How many Americans can I bed this weekend?

And that, sweetheart, is why I cannot tolerate them.

This, you also have to understand, coming from a country that's been trying to "free itself" from Western dominance. They complain about being dominated and undermined by the "1st World", yet on the other hand they behave as if they completely want to be dominated.

My issue isn't with your use of the word "slut" but with your degradation of other girls, including the character of the book. "Immense cheapness" is a type of insult that accompanies negative ideas about sluttiness. So although you present yourself as being neutral about the word, and although it may not be your intention, it seems to me that you're using language that is used to shame women into specific types of conduct (i.e. only having certain types of sex, feeling ashamed of desire, etc.).

Now obviously I'm in a pretty different (and very Western) context, but your comment on October 18 suggests that the real problem is acceptance of a certain type of imperialism (in this case a sexual expression of imperial dominance/submission), which you see these girls as accepting. But why mix all this slut-shaming language into your anti-Western argument? It seems to me (again, limited in/by my own context) that the girls you're talking about are less likely to listen to what you're saying if they're told that they're bad/dirty/cheap. Isn't the real problem something bigger and deeper than that? It seems to me that all this talk of "sluts" is getting in the way of examining that bigger truth. But again, this is just my opinion.

To bring the conversation back to Vampire Academy: yes, Rose is hypocritical, but I think her hypocrisy is a really effective expression of the taboos of the world she lives in. I think she's disgusted by the "blood whores" both because she's been raised to feel that way and also because she's in an unprivileged – even oppressed – position in her society. She is scared that she will be devalued as much as the "blood whores" are. So her hypocrisy, while not exactly admirable, is really very human. These contradictions are, to me, what make a character feel real, since real people are profoundly contradictory and hypocritical in their beliefs and desires.

Of course that doesn't mean that you should like the character, or the book. But it does make for some interesting discussion!

My issue isn't with your use of the word "slut" but with your degradation of other girls, including the character of the book

We arent the ones "degrading" other girls, or the character in this book, THEY are degrading themselves by their own actions, we're just pointing out what we observe. People have the right to do whatever they want, sure, but they shouldn't get so angry when others call them out for it.

Say there was a male character who flirted and made out with a bunch of girls and acted very inappropriately (perhaps even trying to get in their pants a few times). He would be what's called a player. You wouldn't have any problem with that word, would you? Because its true.

My problem isn't with the word slut being used. My objection is to the idea that a promiscuous person (male or female) is inherently degrading themselves by being promiscuous. I object to the use of "slut" as a term that suggests that women are worthless if they engage in promiscuous behavior.

I do see a distinction between the words "slut" and "player." The first is most often used as an insult. The second is often used in a complementary or at least neutral context. "Slut" is usually used to refer to women; "player" is generally used to refer to men.

While you personally may find both equally reprehensible (male and female promiscuousness), men generally experience fewer social consequences for their promiscuity. A "player" will not be denied access to birth control or told that he "deserved" an assault (violent or sexual) because of his clothes or past conduct. However, a "slut" does face negative social consequences. Women are often punished socially for their promiscuity; men rarely are. While there is nothing inherently wrong with using a word, I do find it troubling when they're used to enforce a double standard, and one that can be very harmful to women (especially in the case of rape, e.g. "Well, she's a slut, so she must have wanted it").

I do see a distinction between the words "slut" and "player." The first is most often used as an insult. The second is often used in a complementary or at least neutral context

Wait, wait, wait...since when was calling someone player a compliment? It isnt, at least not to me.

I object to the use of "slut" as a term that suggests that women are worthless if they engage in promiscuous behavior.

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say here. But I never said I think just because someone is slutty they are worthless. I know women face double-standards. My main issue is when young girls are behaving in a slutty manor, like Rose. And Rose was all in your face "I'm hot, boys want me, I flirt and can sleep with anyone I want." Yet she calls other women "bloodwhores."If she were say, 20 or older, I wouldnt have much of a problem with it. But I'm so fed up with all the YA books and media that focus around young teens and sex.

E wrote:My problem isn't with the word slut being used. My objection is to the idea that a promiscuous person (male or female) is inherently degrading themselves by being promiscuous.

Hi there! First up I should clarify ... don't get me wrong, promiscuity is a lifestyle, and I don't think someone's automatically a bad person or worthless junk just because they happen to be promiscuous.

E wrote:It seems to me (again, limited in/by my own context) that the girls you're talking about are less likely to listen to what you're saying if they're told that they're bad/dirty/cheap.

Oh, I agree. In fact if I told them they were cheap and easy, it would probably boost their ego.

But I have no intention of trying to get them to change their ways. It's not my business ;)

Before I continue, I should probably underline that they ARE "cheap" - as in, they would sleep with anyone with a white dick, never mind all the irrelevant stuff like does he bother treating you right or not.

But again, that's not why I dislike them, nor what makes me degrade them. What makes them "bad" in my eyes is that they would date one guy and then ditch him for another, or hook up with a friend's white boyfriend, or cheat on their Italian boyfriend with a Spanish one. Things like that.

I've had a French friend, all ready to propose to his girlfriend of two years, who happened to be one of these types of girls, and then discovered she'd been sleeping around behind his back. Needless to say that's a lot of money, effort and emotions gone to waste.

So basically what I'm trying to say is it's all just a game to these girls. A game of "who can get the most white dicks" pardon my language; and it doesn't matter what they do or who they hurt to win it. I don't value male players, I certainly don't value female ones, either.

Oh and interesting fact - have you heard of the Mentawai Islands? It's a place in my home country, a popular destination for surfers both local and foreign.Why I mention Mentawai is that almost the same attitude exists there, although lower education and lack of entertainment may have played a big role. The dangerous part is that almost everyone there loves them a foreigner. And that includes the little girls. I've seen foreign visitors ask a kid to show him around the beach and she so willingly obliges. And this is not a crowded, dense island we're talking about here. Hello child trafficking.

But anyway, back to the actual book. As you probably understand, the reason I disliked Rose was more due to her hypocrisy than her actual promiscuity. And yes, although her character was a believable one, I still dislike her. Almost as much as I dislike - with a furious f****ing passion - the "white-penis hunting" girls of my country; in lack of a better term.And the reason I brought up Rose being a "slut" was simply to give an illustration of how I found her similar to those types of girls.

E wrote:Women are often punished socially for their promiscuity; men rarely are. While there is nothing inherently wrong with using a word, I do find it troubling when they're used to enforce a double standard, and one that can be very harmful to women (especially in the case of rape, e.g. "Well, she's a slut, so she must have wanted it").

Yes, this too I agree with. And I think it's a shame that men aren't punished for their --not promiscuity, per se, but for being a "player" and shuffling through their share of girls like a deck of cards without a single thought of who they might be hurting or the morality of their actions.I, for one, am disgusted by these men as much as I'm disgusted by girls of the same trait.

Victim blaming obviously is a definite no-no, but not all people who dislike sluts believe they deserve or are asking to be raped. And the people who DO believe that, well... slut-shaming is the least of their problems.

Caucasion has nothing to do with anything. Review the book, don't throw your misguided racism at me. It seems to me that you just have a thing against western people (H-town right here) and your taking it out on a book. One other thing you should remember-IT'S FICTION. None of it actually happened. But as to your review, I liked this book BECAUSE of the whole Twilight stereotype. This was a book that stood out because of society's common views towards weak and feminist women. Besides, doesn't it get annoying when you have someone saying how ugly they are all the time but they're really very pretty? Also, there's a huge difference between being aware of your looks and proclaiming them. It's not like Rose walks around the school saying, "Hey, Adrian! I'm hot!". The character was centered as a teen and as such went through normal teen experiences. Kinda. I will admit, Lissa was pretty dry and I didn't like it that much. But the book was decent from the thousands I've read (speed-reader) and I'm sure it will make a good movie. And also, let me just say again, white has nothing to do with it. Now on the other hand if Rose was constantly thinking, "Hey I'm white, he'll wanna hook up with me," that might be different, but your rant on race has nothing to do with the book. If you didn't like the book, start out with that and list the reasons why. Don't give us your personal problems first. God bless.

No, caucasian *doesn't* have anything to do with the book. Read the review again. It was an example of how Rose - the character IN the book - reminds me of the people (who are NON-caucasians) who I highly disrespect. Note that I disrespect the caucasian-HUNTERS, not the CAUCASIANS. So don't throw your misguided accusations-of-racism at ME.

And also, let me just say again, white has nothing to do with it. Now on the other hand if Rose was constantly thinking, "Hey I'm white, he'll wanna hook up with me," that might be different, but your rant on race has nothing to do with the book.

You're missing the point here. I'm not saying Rose's race has anything to do with ANYTHING! By my "rant on race" I was making the comparison of Rose obsessing over guys because they were "hot" or a "moroi prince", much like these girls in my home country would obsess over guys just because they were "hot" and "white". So basically if a guy was not "hot", or not a "prince", or not "white", they wouldn't be worth it.

And if you liked her character, that's fine. Write a review and express yourself. That's what it's for. I for one didn't like her. I didn't like Lissa. I didn't buy Rose's "relationship" with Dimitri, and I don't think the book does anything for feminism.

Also,

One other thing you should remember-IT'S FICTION. None of it actually happened.

Damn, and here I was thinking vampires and strigoi might be roaming my neighbourhood. Next thing you'll tell me there's no such thing as Hogwarts!

But all sarcasm aside, it doesn't matter whether a book happened or not. When you read, it incites emotions, which also depends on the way you interpret the book. And since interpretation has a LOT to do with culture, expectations, and your own personal experiences, then it IS legitimate to give examples of real life events to express why the book made you feel the way it did.

I'm kinda irked that ppl start personally accusing you of 'slut-shaming' and 'racism' etc etc because of this review. i think they feel personally attacked because of your negative rating of a book they loved, so it clouds their understanding of what you're trying to say in this review.Don't worry about it though and hope you keep making honest reviews!

Thanks HBP!Also I think people are too lazy to read large chunks of text, so they don't bother reading through the comments section, which if they had, it would've been clear to them this review has nothing to do with slut-shaming or racism or whatever.

Well, yes. And I do agree with you there. Hate it all you want, I have plentty of friends who hate it too. I have no problem with that. It's just that with negative reviews people don't tend to realize that on the internet there's no tone inflection and it's really easy to misinterpret things. (btw I've never read Harry Potter and I'm not planning on it, so that has no significance to me, but thanks for that reference.) One other thing- it seems now that you have no problem with whites, you just came off as if you were blaming these boys for being "caucasion". Oh, and I'll definitely agree that most of them don't mind but I happen to know that there are some pretty decent white guys out there. Anyway, have a fantastic day and keep reading. God bless.

Hmm, well I guess that's a small misunderstanding. Of course I don't blame people for being a certain race. My anger was directed at the girls (and sometimes also boys!) that I've mentioned in my review, because of the way they behave and think. I mean, I've lived in Sydney for almost all my life, and my boyfriend is Australian, but I would hate to think of dating him because he's white, and because it looks good when I show him off to my friends back home in my country :\

I absolutely agree with this. My hubby surprised me with this book, and I was hopeful of it. It disappointed me completely. Rose is not likable, not possible to relate to, and just not good. Lissa bothered me, as well. She was too obsessed with being what others want.

Honestly I could live without the slutty, in-your-face bitchiness that is plaguing book nowadays. I know it might seem wrong, but I would love to see a positive, kind female lead. Someone that isn't always obsessing over being hot, sexy, or having sexy guys on the brain. I can't remember the last time I read a heroine as being sweet, undemanding, and gentle. You don't have to be a bitch to be strong.

Carolyn wrote: "I know it might seem wrong, but I would love to see a positive, kind female lead. Someone that isn't always obsessing over being hot, sexy, or having sexy guys on the brain. I can't remember the last time I read a heroine as being sweet, undemanding, and gentle. You don't have to be a bitch to be strong. "

Claire wrote: "Thank you for this review!! I might have wasted time reading, otherwise ;)"

Just ranting out how I felt about the book :PTo be fair though, others had enjoyed VA - who knows, maybe you will, too. You should read some positive reviews of VA as well, just to see if you might find any redeeming qualities in it :P

Kelly wrote: "Great review! Wish I had written it..summed up how I felt completely."

Amanda wrote: " Carolyn wrote: "I know it might seem wrong, but I would love to see a positive, kind female lead. Someone that isn't always obsessing over being hot, sexy, or having sexy guys on the brain. I ca..."

It's like the authors of YA believe we are all boy-crazy hormonal raging machines. And the plots are flimsy as a result.

yes, rose was like this in the first book. but then i read the next 5, ansd she literally changes throught them. she killed to strogi in the second one, watched her best friend mason die righti n front of her. dimiri almost leavingf for christian evil aunt. (shee's evil in 5 and 6) then something very basd happens to dimitri in book three. at the end of book 3, rose makes a heart-braking decsion. book 5, not even gonna go htere. book 6, she's on the run for a royal murder she didn't commit.

Flag Abuse

Flagging a post will send it to the Goodreads Customer Care team for review.
We take abuse seriously in our discussion boards.
Only flag comments that clearly need our attention.
As a general rule we do not censor any content on the site.
The only content we will consider removing is spam,
slanderous attacks on other members,
or extremely offensive content (eg. pornography, pro-Nazi, child abuse, etc).
We will not remove any content for bad language alone, or being critical
of a particular book.